Gentleman rider case
The so-called Herrenreiter case is a decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of February 14, 1958 ( BGHZ 26, 349). It is one of the most important supreme court decisions in German law for the protection of general personal rights under civil law . With it the possibility was opened to demand compensation for pain and suffering in the unauthorized publication of pictures. The decision was based on the following facts:
The plaintiff worked as a gentleman rider (today one would say: dressage rider) at tournaments. The defendant was the manufacturer of a pharmaceutical preparation, which, after the introduction to large sections of the population, also served to increase sexual potency. To advertise this means in the Federal Republic of Germany, she distributed a poster depicting a tournament rider based on an original photo of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not given consent to the use of his picture. The plaintiff demanded damages from the defendant in the amount of 15,000 DM .
The Cologne Higher Regional Court, as the court of appeal , granted the plaintiff compensation in the amount of DM 10,000, since his general personal rights, protected by Art. 1 and Art. 2 of the Basic Law , were violated. As damage the approved Higher Regional Court the plaintiffs in the height of the viewpoint of a lost license fee an amount he could have asked if a contract had come to reasonable terms concluded between the parties. It could rely on an earlier decision of the Federal Court of Justice in the so-called Paul Dahlke case . The Federal Court of Justice rejected a calculation on the basis of the license analogy, however, since in the present case the plaintiff would have under no circumstances agreed to use the photo. Such a calculation would assume that the plaintiff would have been able to change his mind for money, but rather an economically unmeasurable financial loss occurred .
The Federal Court of Justice approved compensation for pain and suffering (according to § 847 BGB old version, today § 253 (2) BGB would apply) in the amount judged by the higher regional court. It equated the violation of the right to one's own image with the violation of the legal interest of freedom protected in § 847 BGB old version. The previous case law does not play a role, since the Paul Dahlke case involved specific damage, but precisely not in the Herrenreiter case. The function of compensation for pain and suffering is to offer the injured party adequate compensation for those damages, the loss of life (or personality) that are not of a property-related nature.
See also
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ BGHZ 20, 345.
